[2006] EWHC 582 QB, 22 March 2006. Appeal by P against a decision that proceedings against D alleging deceit and defects in design was an abuse of process. D supplied windows and doors to P. When D did nothing to remedy joinery defects in two of the windows, P withheld final payment. Further defects later became obvious. D issued proceedings to recover the outstanding payment. At trial, D accepted there had been defective workmanship in relation to one window, and P was awarded damages. On appeal, P sought to raise complaints of defective design in relation to all the windows, but was not allowed to do so because they had not been raised before the trial judge. P now submitted claims based on deceit and defective design, arguing that the window and door casements manufactured by P were too narrow to accommodate the sealed glazed units provided by the glazing subcontractor, and that D had deliberately omitted weatherproofing so the glazed units would fit the windows. "Held": the recorder had concluded that if P were allowed to pursue design defects in respect of one window, it would be absurd not to allow them to canvass the same defects in respect of all the other windows. She had therefore erred in concluding that D's acceptance in respect of that one window precluded P's claim over the remaining windows. She had also erred in finding that P's statement of claim did not disclose a cause of action in deceit; P could not be blamed for not having raised the issue of defective design in the first proceedings when they were not at that stage aware of D's concealment of defects in the windows. To hold that it would be unjust to D to commence a second set of proceedings in those circumstances was unreasonable. The proceedings were not an abuse of process, and the appeal was allowed.